Mr A Maxwell\
Department of Planning\
Peak District National Park Authority\
Aldern House\
Baslow Road\
Bakewell\
Derbyshire\
DE45 1AE

24 January 2017

KF Ref MW 495

Dear Mr Maxwell

Planning objection in respect of planning application NP/S/1216/1235, for the retrospective ‘Change of use of from C3 (dwellinghouse) to C2 (care home for adults) and retention of access,’ at The Lodge, Hollow Meadows, Manchester Road, Sheffield, S6 6GJ.

We write on behalf of our client’s, Hollow Meadows Mew Ltd, in objection to the above planning application, ahead of the revised public consultation deadline for this application of Friday 25th January 2017.

This letter of representation sets out an appraisal of the proposed development in relation to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the statutory Development Plan and other material planning considerations, identifying areas of significant concern, most notably in respect of impact upon highway safety and residential amenity.

The Site

The site is located to the north of Manchester Road, Hollow Meadows, Sheffield and comprises a two storey property, set within approximately 0.63ha of open Countryside, which partially comprises curtilage land. We understand that this property has historically been used to house staff, including gardener, doctor and caretaker, associated with the historic use of the adjacent Mews development as a school for truant boys, and laterally a hospital for the mentally infirm. More recently, the property has been used as a private residential dwelling, with the present proprietor of The Lodge taking ownership in 2006.

The site is bordered by open countryside to the north, north-east and west, with the field immediately adjacent The Lodge to the west (circa 1.3ha) also owned by the applicant, but not forming part of the application site. To the east of the site is Hollow Meadow Mews, comprising nine private residential dwellings which were converted from their former use as a hospital in the 1980’s, alongside The Lodge, for private residential use. The site is bordered by Manchester Road to the south, beyond which lies further open Countryside and the Rivelin Brook.

Access to The Lodge has historically been established and achieved via a private driveway off Manchester Road, which is under the ownership of Hollow Meadow Mews Ltd, but over which The Lodge has historically had a right of access as a private dwelling. This driveway leads to a small private car park which serves the residents and visitors of Hollow Meadow Mews, continuing further north to provide access to The Lodge. We understand that sole ownership of the driveway was transferred to Hollow Meadows Mews Ltd in 1993 by the previous landowner, with the stipulation (detailed within the land charges register) that a right of way be retained to The Lodge and surrounding land, subject to the landowner paying a fair proportion of the costs of maintaining said land. However, we understand that there has been historic legal dispute over whether this duty is actually being met, particularly following recent resurfacing works which have incurred a major cost to our client, despite the continued use of the driveway by The Lodge, including by heavy trucks and delivery vehicles during the recent construction works.

To the rear of the property is situated a large detached outbuilding, planning permission for which was granted in 2007, forming part of a scheme of other extensions and alterations to The Lodge, including kitchen extension and conservatory (ref NP/S/0707/0637). We understand that retrospective planning permission was sought in 2011 for the conversion of this structure to a gym and granny annex (ref NP/S/1011/1002), however an appeal was subsequently lodged by the applicant against the Council’s failure to determine this application within the statutory determination period. Planning permission for the conversion was then granted on appeal in July 2012, inclusive of external alterations to the structure, including the installation of new apertures and shiplap wooden cladding to improve the aesthetics of the building. However, we understand that the external alterations since undertaken to the building are not in accordance with the approved plans.

Whilst the site falls within the administrative boundary of Sheffield City Council, we understand that its location within the Peak District National Park means that all planning applications in this area will be determined by the Peak District National Park Authority, although Sheffield City Council will be retained as statutory consultees on all applications received within the National Park.

**Proposed Development**

The application now under consideration by the Council seeks planning permission for the retrospective change of use of The Lodge and detached outbuilding to the rear, from use as a private dwellinghouse with ancillary granny annex (use class C3) to a care home for up to nine adults with learning difficulties (C2).

Externally, whilst no alterations are proposed to The Lodge itself, a number of external works have been undertaken to the granny annex to the rear of the property, including the installation of new window apertures and the creation of a series of rooflights within the rear roof plane.

The application also seeks to regularise the creation of a private vehicular access and driveway off Manchester Road, approximately 50m to the west of the existing private access of Hollow Meadow Mews and over which the applicant currently has a right of access. This new access comprises a bellmouth which adjoins Manchester Road, the ‘wings’ of which have been walled with stone. This gated access then adjoins a driveway, which at present consists of little more than some compounded hardcore, leading directly to The Lodge. We understand that should planning permission be granted for the retention of the access and driveway, that a more permanent surface shall be implemented.

Our client wishes for it to be noted that they wrote to the Peak District National Park Authority in October 2016 to bring to the Council’s attention the unlawful change of use and the then ongoing works to the outbuilding to the rear of The Lodge. They were disappointed with the Council’s subsequent response, which instead of requiring that works on site cease until investigated further, stated that a planning application to regularise the works was to be submitted shortly and that no action would be taken in the interim. This has subsequently enabled the development on site to have been completed, which we consider may unfairly prejudge the Council’s final decision on this application. A copy of our client’s original letter and subsequent correspondence from the Council is attached at Appendix 1 for reference. Application Procedure

Before outlining the basis of our objection, we wish to bring to your attention a series of procedural errors with the application, which are fundamental to both its validity and legality.

Having undertaken a land registry search of the application site, we have found that the Site Plan submitted alongside this application is fundamentally incorrect, as it includes a strip of land along the site’s south-eastern perimeter which is in fact owned by our client’s. A copy of the land registry plans pertaining to this site can be found at Appendix 2, which clearly conflicts with the Site Plan submitted with this application, where the disputed strip of land is highlighted yellow for ease of reference.

Notwithstanding whether the inclusion of this land was intentional or accidental, the applicant has failed to serve the requisite notice upon the lawful owners of this land i.e Hollow Meadows Mews Ltd, as required by Article 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. As such, with reference to Section 65(5) of The Town and Country Planning Act (1990), ‘A local planning authority shall not entertain an application for planning permission unless any requirements imposed by virtue of this section have been satisfied’.

We therefore consider that an updated Site Plan should be submitted without delay, and subsequently re-consulted upon prior to the determination of this application.

Secondly, we consider there to be inconsistencies with the plans submitted alongside this application, casting uncertainty over the level of development for which planning permission is actually being sought. This is inevitably a significant cause for concern for our clients, who are worried that the applicant is trying to obtain planning permission for a higher density development than stated.

With reference to the ‘Existing and Proposed Floor Plan’ drawing (ref OCT16 Rev 1), the floor plans for the detached annex show 2 bedrooms at ground floor level, with a third bedroom within the roof void. However, these conflict with both the ‘Proposed’ and ‘As Built’ Elevations drawings, which each indicate the provision of 3 bedrooms at ground floor level, with a fourth bedroom within the roof void. In combination with the 6 bedrooms provided within the main house, this would result in bed space for up to 10 residents and not 9 as stated within the application. We also note that ‘Proposed Elevations’ plan (ref DEC16 Rev B) does not show the rooflights which have been installed to the rear.

We therefore consider it is essential that the Council seek clarification on these matters and require amended plans as necessary.

Finally, we consider that the application description does not adequately and accurately describe the scope of the development, as it does not reference the external alterations which have been made, and are proposed to be made, to the former granny annex in order to facilitate its conversion to care accommodation. As neither granny annexes nor residential institutions (C2) benefit from permitted development rights in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, these external works therefore also require planning permission in their own right and must be assessed as part of this application.

Basis for Objection and Detailed Planning Considerations, within the Context of Local and National Planning Policy

We understand from an informal conversation with you on Thursday 5th January 2017, that the applicant submitted a pre-application enquiry ahead of submission of this application. Whilst we have not seen the response provided by the Council due to reasons of confidentiality, we understand that the Council’s primary concerns with the development related to both the appearance and highway’s safety of the new access off Manchester Road, and the intensification of the use of the property, when assessed against its former and residential use.

With these issues in mind and notwithstanding the procedural errors with this application previously detailed, should the Council consider that these matters can be resolved by amendments and re-advertisement of the planning application, we set out the following series of fundamental objections to this proposal.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2012)

Under the provisions of Section 38 of the Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, local planning authorities are required to determine applications in accordance with policies contained within the Statutory Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The key local and national planning policies which we consider are of direct relevance to this site and the proposals are set out below.

The NPPF contains key guidance and policies, considered as a material consideration within the decision making process, it also introduces a presumption in favour of sustainable development, advising that development proposals which accord with the development plan should be approved without delay.

NPPF paragraph 34 states that ‘Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised.’

Within the context of this policy, the movements associated with the use of the site as a care home for up to 9 (or potentially 10) residents will clearly be significantly higher than those associated with the site’s former use as a private residential dwelling, not only by virtue of the number of residents, but the needs of these residents too i.e staff; visitors; servicing such as laundry and grounds maintenance; medical, social and leisure appointments; prescription delivery and convenience shopping. This is compounded by the site’s rural location, where the need to travel by car will most certainly not be minimised and is therefore contrary to national planning policy.

It is stated within the accompanying Planning Statement, that the residents are unlikely to possess their own vehicles, and that vehicular movements will be limited to 3-4 staff vehicles per day; 3 visitor vehicles per week and 2-3 delivery/collection vehicles per week. We consider this to be a gross underestimation of the vehicular movements associated with this development and this is supported by the experience of our client’s to date, who observe numerous vehicular movements on a daily basis for purposes such as food deliveries, laundry services, prescription deliveries, medical/emergency vehicles, staff rotation (24 hours a day) and visitors. The majority of these vehicles utilise the access and driveway owned by our client as opposed to the newly created and independent access, causing conflict with residents of Hollow Meadow Mews for whom this is the only access to their properties, and which is being damaged by excessive use for which they are not being recompensed.

We have enclosed a series of photographs at Appendix 3 for reference, which clearly illustrate the presence of high numbers of cars on site and the parking of vehicles on the lawn due to the inadequacy of parking and turning areas. In addition, the regular arrival of large delivery vehicles has been observed, all of which have a detrimental impact upon highway and pedestrian safety and the residential amenity of residents of the Mews.

With reference to paragraphs 17 and 58 of the NPPF, it is advised that planning should always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. It is also advised that planning decisions should aim to create safe and accessible environments, and not undermine the quality of life and establish a strong sense of place, using streetscapes and buildings to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit.

Within this context, the proposed development is having a detrimental impact upon the residential amenity of the residents of the Mews and is causing the unnecessary over-intensification of the existing access, of detriment to highway safety. The private resident’s car park belonging to the Mews is also, on occasion, being utilised by visitors of The Lodge, displacing residents allocated parking and causing additional traffic pressures.

NPPF Paragraph 115 advises that ‘Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty’.

The retrospective development, most notably the installation of a secondary access and long driveway is an overtly urban form of development, which does not befit the rural character of the locality, albeit steps have been made to use traditional materials for this. The development clearly has a visually detrimental impact upon the open character of the Countryside and subsequently the scenic beauty of the Peak District National Park, contrary to national planning policy.

Finally, paragraph 125 states that planning decisions should limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation. However, since the unlawful change of use has been implemented, the applicant has installed a number of security lights to the exterior of the premises, notably to the front and side (east) of the property. These lights do not appear to be on sensors and as such are currently illuminated for 24 hours a day. This is causing significant disturbance to the residents of Hollow Meadow Mews and has led to some residents having to increase their window coverings to minimise light disturbance during the night. Not only is the excessive lighting having a detrimental impact upon residential amenity, but it is also causing light pollution within an otherwise very dark part of the Peak District National Park.

Local Planning Policy

The Local Development Plan for the Peak District National Park Authority presently comprises the following documents of relevance to the assessment of this proposal:

- ‘Saved Policies’ of the Local Plan (2001); and
- Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2011)

With reference to the Local Plan (2001) and the adopted Proposals Map, we note that this site is located within Recreation Zone 2. However, we understand that Local Plan Policy LR1 which previously guided development in such locations has now been deleted. As such, developments within this area will now be assessed in accordance relevant policies contained within the Core Strategy (2011).

Core Strategy Policy GSP3: Development Management Principles states that:

‘All development must conform to the following principles:

Development must respect, conserve and enhance all valued characteristics of the site and buildings that are subject to the development proposal. Particular attention will be paid to:

a. impact on the character and setting of buildings b. scale of development appropriate to the character and appearance of the National Park c. siting, landscaping and building materials d. design in accordance with the National Park Authority Design Guide e. form and intensity of proposed use or activity f. impact on living conditions of communities g. impact on access and traffic levels h. use of sustainable modes of transport i. use of sustainable building techniques’

With reference to this policy, we consider that the development clearly contravenes sections e-f. This is by virtue of the fact that it represents an over-intensified use of the site, which contrary to the applicant’s submission, cannot reasonably be considered as comparable to the use of the property as a private residential dwelling, even on such occasions that it is not occupied to full capacity. As previously detailed above, this is predominantly attributable to the number of vehicular movements associated with the site, which clearly cannot be reasonably compared to the level of activity which would be associated with a private household.

The comings and goings associated with the change of use is therefore having a direct and detrimental impact upon the living conditions and amenity of the residents of the adjacent Mews, by virtue of excessive noise and disturbance, as well as concerns over highway safety. The Lodge continues to utilise the Mews’ access in the main, which is resulting in additional and unacceptable pressures upon highway safety. We understand that visibility is extremely poor at the point where the Mews’ driveway forks to the east to serve the private car park and meets The Lodge’s driveway to the north, meaning that vehicles are often forced to break sharply when accessing/egressing at this point.

It is also a concern that the driveway owned by our client is frequently narrowed by the presence of parked cars, meaning that access via emergency vehicle cannot be guaranteed at all times to The Lodge. In addition, there is no formalised footway on the driveway, meaning that excessive vehicular movements also pose a risk to pedestrians from both Hollow Meadows mews and The Lodge, further demonstrating the need for them to make use of the new access they have created, but which appears to remain locked for the majority of the time. Instead the proprietors of The Lodge choose to continue to use our client’s driveway, over which they have only a right of access, and over which there is legal dispute as to whether they make a financial contribution towards the upkeep and maintenance of.

The significant increase in vehicular movements and general traffic levels is also a cause for concern on the safety of the wider highway network, notably Manchester Road. As demonstrated by the traffic data submitted alongside this application, this stretch of Manchester Road is particularly treacherous, with numerous recorded instances of both serious and fatal incidents over the last 15 years, one of which was at almost the precise location of the newly created access. As such, the increase in traffic levels in this locality is a considerable concern, particularly when being required to access/egress this site, via either the new or existing access, which are within very close proximity to one another.

We would also draw attention to the Inspector’s decision (ref APP/M9496/A/12/2171923) to grant retrospective planning permission for the granny annex in September 2012, which concluded that provided the annex remained tied to the main dwelling, it would not result in an over intensive use of the property. However, crucially this application proposed just one bedroom within the granny annex, as opposed to the four now proposed and additionally the number of bedrooms in the main house were fewer than the six now present. As such, the development now proposed is clearly a significant over intensification of the use of site, which conflicts with the Inspector’s previous recommendations.

Also of relevance is Core Strategy Policy L1: Landscape Character and Valued Characteristics, which states that:

a. Development must conserve and enhance valued landscape character, as identified in the Landscape Strategy and Action Plan, and other valued characteristics. Whilst the change of use entails only minor external alterations to the former granny annex, the creation of a stone-walled access and driveway has an appreciable impact upon the landscape character and visual amenity of this attractive, open, Countryside location. We therefore consider that the retention of the access directly contravenes the objectives of this policy.

Core Strategy Policy T1: Reducing the general need to travel and encouraging sustainable transport, goes on to state that:

a. Conserving and enhancing the National Park’s valued characteristics will be the primary criterion in the planning and design of transport and its management.

b. Cross-Park traffic will be deterred.

c. Modal shift to sustainable transport will be encouraged.

d. Improved connectivity between sustainable modes of travel will be sought.

e. Impacts of traffic within environmentally sensitive locations will be minimised.

f. Sustainable access for the quiet enjoyment of the National Park, that does not cause harm to the valued characteristics, will be promoted.

g. Demand management and low carbon initiatives will be sought where appropriate

The change of use sought clearly conflicts with this policy as it relies heavily upon the use of the private motor vehicle, and a shift to more sustainable modes of transport, such as buses, is not possible due to limited availability in the locality. Whilst we note that a there are bus stops along Manchester Road, the nearest of which is approximately 340m from The Lodge, these offer only a limited service. Furthermore, there are no shops or amenities within walking distance from the site, meaning the reliance on private vehicles will still be significant. The impacts of additional traffic generation therefore cannot be minimised, even via the retention of the new vehicular access.

Finally, by virtue of the site’s location outside of a defined settlement limit i.e within the open Countryside, section C of Core Strategy Policy DS1: Development Strategy must be also be applied, stating that:

‘In all settlements and in the countryside outside the Natural Zone the following forms of development will be acceptable in principle (where permission is required):

- agriculture, forestry, and other rural enterprises requiring a rural location, including farm diversification;
- extensions to existing buildings;
- recreation and tourism;
- mineral working;
- conversion or change of use for housing, community facilities and business uses including visitor accommodation, preferably by re-use of traditional buildings;
- renewable energy infrastructure;
- utilities infrastructure;
- other development and alternative uses needed to secure effective conservation and enhancement’ We do not consider that the proposed change of use is acceptable within the context of this policy as the probate care home is a use class within its own right and cannot be defined as either housing, a community facility or a business.

Whilst we understand that the Council may only consider this development on the basis of the information presented before them as part of this application, our client’s wish for it to be noted that they have significant concerns that the applicant may wish to build additional structures and outbuildings on site in the future, such as maintenance buildings and stores, the use of which will be argued to be necessary to the care home use, if permitted.

Our clients are concerned that such structures would be sought with the sole intention to try and secure consent for their conversion, as a way of securing planning permission for development which would otherwise be resisted in such a sensitive location as the Peak District National Park. This concern arises from the incremental extension and alteration of The Lodge over recent years, which has resulted in the over-intensified use of the site, in a sensitive landscape area, which is clearly now at capacity and cannot accommodate any further development in line with Policy DS1.

**Other Material Planning Considerations**

Peak District National Park Authority Landscape Strategy and European Landscape Convention Action Plan (2009-2019)

With reference to this document, the site is located within one of 8 landscape character areas, known as the ‘Eastern Moors’. Here, we understand that the Council’s strategy for development is to ‘Protect and manage the open upland landscapes; seek opportunities to manage and enhance cultural heritage, biodiversity, recreational opportunities and tranquillity whilst maintaining the open character.’

The overriding characteristic of this part of the Eastern Moors is known to be Enclosed Gritstone Uplands, where the priority should be to protect the historic field patterns and protect and restore pastoral farmland.

In light of the landscape character, the proposed development is not considered to meet the objectives of the Council’s Landscape Strategy, particularly due to the creation of a new access and driveway which fails to conserve and enhance the locality’s open, agricultural character and historic field patterns and is subsequently visually harmful to the landscape character.

**Suggested Planning Conditions**

Notwithstanding the contents of this document, should the Local Planning Authority be minded to approve this application (as amended), it is suggested that the following conditions should be considered in order to ensure the responsible management of this development and to minimise the disruption associated with its use:

- The level and intensity of external security lighting should be strictly controlled;
- A limitation should be applied to the number of residents which can occupy The Lodge at any one time;
- Parking associated with the care home should be strictly limited to being on site only and should be clearly sign posted as such, in order to avoid the use of our client’s private land;
- Details of the materials to be used to resurface the driveway to a more permanent construction should be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and
- Access to the site must be exclusively via the new access and driveway off Manchester Road and signposted as such, in order to avoid the excessive use and damage of our client’s land. Summary

Whilst our client’s acknowledge the merits of the care service provided by Moorville Residential in their change of use application, the retrospective nature of this application has enabled identification of a number of fundamental concerns with the development, which are contrary to both local and national planning policy.

As outlined above, we consider that the change of use has resulted in an over-intensification of this sensitive, rural site, leading to excessive traffic generation and general disturbance which is of detriment to both highway band pedestrian safety and the amenity of neighbouring residents. This is principally due to the site’s unsuitable and unsustainable location for this type of use, as well as the continued use of the access owned by our client, over which the applicant has a right of access only, but which is still being used by users and visitors of the care home on a daily basis despite the creation of a dedicated private access and driveway further west. In the medium to longer term, this will also result in physical damage and degradation of the driveway, the maintenance and upkeep of which the applicant has a legal requirement to contribute towards financially, but which they continually refuse to do so. We also consider that the appearance of the new access and driveway is fundamentally harmful to landscape character and quality of the Eastern Moors.

The retention of the presently unlawful C2 care home is clearly not acceptable if accessed via the driveway owned by Hollow Meadows Mews Ltd and would only be potentially permissible if accessed independently, to mitigate the detrimental impact upon residential amenity and highway and pedestrian safety. However, as the access which has been created off Manchester Road is located on a clearly dangerous section of highway; is situated within less than 50m of an existing access and is visually intrusive on the sensitive and open character of the landscape, planning permission for the retention of the access and driveway should clearly be refused. As such, cumulatively we consider that the development as a whole cannot be granted planning permission within the context of adopted planning policy.

A number of procedural errors and inconsistencies also exist with the submitted application, leading to the opportunity to challenge its validity and legality if approved without amendment.

Should this application be referred to the Council’s Planning Committee, we would also respectfully request the opportunity to speak within this forum and would be grateful if you could notify us directly of any potential committee date.

We would be happy to discuss our representations with you in more detail if required. In the interim, please do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you may have regarding the contents of our letter.

Yours sincerely

Megan Wilmott Senior Planning Consultant megan.wilmott@knightfrank.com T +44 333 015 6980 M +44 7468 729 119 Appendix 1 – Enforcement Correspondence Mr S. Bostock 1 Hollow meadows mews Manchester Road Sheffield S66GJ

Hollow Meadows Mews Ltd Letter of Concern

Letter to Peak District National Park Authority, Bradfield Parish Council and Planning Inspectorate

Dear Sir or Madam,

Reference: Property The Lodge, Manchester Road, Hollow Meadows, Sheffield, S6 6GJ

As Directors, on behalf of Hollow Meadows Mews Ltd, we write to formally express extreme concern about the current building development and use of property at The Lodge, address as above. This is seriously adversely affecting the neighbouring residents of Hollow Meadows Mews and we wish to raise these matters with you and request that you urgently clarify the situation with regard to construction work and the development at the above property.

We feel there has been a history of development to this property which we wish to bring to your attention as it suggests patterns of disregard to planning standards and planning decisions of the Peak Park Planning Authority and Planning Inspectorate, and is relevant background to our current concerns.

1. Planning Application no. NP/S/1011/1002 29/9/2011. This was seeking permission to convert the pre-standing garage to granny flat and gym. As residents we expressed concern about the potential for a separate dwelling to be formed, overdevelopment of the site, additional traffic, overlooking of the adjacent garden, potential change to the character of Hollow Meadows Mews and water supply and sewage concerns. The application was not approved by the Peak Park Authority but was appealed to the Planning Inspectorate (Nigel Harrison acting as Inspector) by the owner (ref APP/M9496/A/12/2171923). The Inspector took account of our concerns but considered that the plans proposed did not result in the creation of a separate dwelling and the annex would not result in over intensive use of the property. The Inspector noted also the ‘granny flat’ was modest in size and use could be controlled by means of a condition to ensure that this could only be used ancillary to the residential use of the main house.

The appeal also outlined (point 5 of the Decision Schedule) that ‘the granny flat hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for the purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling’

2. Planning Application no NP/S/0311/0228 March 2011 was lodged for kitchen/bedroom extension, which was granted subject to building being undertaken within a 3 year period. It appears that building may not have taken place at that time and a further application for planning for a first floor extension over the existing kitchen made on 8/4/2015 was granted on 4/6/2015, again for building to be permitted within a 3 year timeframe

We believe this is currently under construction.

Our concerns also include the following matters;

3. A subsequent Planning Application NP/S/0615/0521 was made to recognise that the field adjacent to the Lodge building had been used ‘as a private garden ... for a continuous period of 10 years’. We believe that the purpose of this was likely to be to facilitate the opportunity to request a change of use, with potential for additional new building works. We understand that the application was not granted on the basis that there was no evidence of garden cultivation for the pre-requisite period of time.

4. Planning application for the Lodge in c 2008 (Application references not known ...) to convert/extend garage for agricultural storage usage and equestrian housing facilities. As neighbours we queried this planning application on the grounds that there was no evidence of agricultural or equestrian activity at this property. However we noted that the owner of the property Michael Boulding had landed a helicopter on the grounds on a number of occasions and were concerned that a change of use at some point in the future would be requested, to enable helicopter pad and hanger. We were also aware that regular use of a helicopter over the Peak Park and public footpaths required planning consents which were unlikely to be met. We understand that the application was not approved or was withdrawn.

Over the past few months as neighbours we have observed developments which raise issues regarding the potential overdevelopment of the site and which do not appear to be consistent with current planning applications and the schedule of conditions of the 2012 planning decision appeal above (ref APP/M9496/A/12/2171923). Details are as follows:

A) Extensive building works are now taking place to the rear of the main Lodge, including the granny flat annex - these appear to be enlarging both height and footprint (which was not agreed following the appeal decision from the planning inspector), potentially no longer rendering the ‘granny flat’ as ‘modest in size’. Building works are also taking place to the main dwelling and we would wish to be reassured that these are compliant to current planning permissions already granted.

B) The Lodge property is no longer being used as a residential dwelling and appears to be being leased by a third party as a care home trading as Moorville Developments Limited. We are not aware of any planning applications associated with this change of use and the general building activity suggests that enlargement of the ‘granny flat’ annex with the possible intention of increasing the commercial use and operations of the care home. Since this transfer of use we have also experienced a number of issues including a substantial increase in traffic using our private drive (deliveries, staff, visitors, building wagons) despite the existence of a private drive and access on The Lodge land itself. On occasions vehicles associated with the commercial use of the property are using excessive speed which represents a potential danger to residents and their visitors.

We are bringing these matters to the formal attention of the Peak District National Park Authority, The Bradfield Parish Council, and also the Planning Inspectorate as we believe the pattern of activity at The Lodge over a number of years suggests a complete disregard for planning standards and formal planning decisions (both planning applications and appeal decisions)

We request confirmation of receipt of this letter of concern and an opportunity to discuss this matter with you at the earliest opportunity.

Yours Faithfully,

Stephen Bostock

Chairman of Hollow Meadows Mews Ltd and sent to you on behalf of the residents. Mr S Bostock\
1 Hollow Meadows mews\
Manchester Road\
Sheffield\
S6 6GJ

Dear Mr Bostock

Re: The Lodge, Manchester Road, Hollow Meadows, Sheffield S6 6GJ

I am writing with reference to your letter, received by this Authority on 4 October 2016, which you wrote in your role as Chairman of Hollow Meadow Mews Ltd on behalf of the residents there.

I have investigated your concerns and I understand that the Lodge is now being managed by ‘Moorville Developments Ltd’ who are in charge of ‘Moorville Residential’.

I have spoken to one of the Directors of ‘Moorville Residential’ who has informed me that they are intending to run this property as a home for autistic adults. He also advised me that they have appointed a planning consultant to resolve all outstanding planning issues at the Lodge.

I am in communication with the planning consultant and I explained that there is an outstanding enforcement issue with regards to the unauthorised driveway across the field and the Authority may take formal enforcement action against this breach of planning.

The agent is planning to submit a planning application to try and regularise all of the breaches of planning including the use of the property. When this is submitted you and the other residents will have the opportunity to submit comments on the application as there will be 21 days consultation period.

I understand from your letter that you have concerns about overdevelopment of the site and a substantial increase in traffic. I suggest that you re-iterate these concerns formally when the planning application is at the consultation stage, as your letter of 4 October 2016 would not be considered as part of this process.

I appreciate your concerns about this site but while discussions are taking place and a planning application is about to be submitted it would not be appropriate for the Authority to take any formal enforcement action. If a planning application were submitted but refused then we would of course review the position with regard to enforcement action. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries.

Yours sincerely

R. C. Olle

Rosie Olle Monitoring and Enforcement Officer Planning Service Direct tel: 01629 816215 E-mail: rosie.olle@peakdistrict.gov.uk Appendix 2 – Land Registry Details Appendix 3 – Site Photographs

Photo 1, taken at junction of Hollow Meadow Mews private car park.

Photo 2, taken from our client’s driveway.

Photo 3, taken from the garden of No.1 Hollow Meadow Mews. Photo 4, taken from our client’s driveway.